‘Police thoroughly followed the legal procedure’; Bombay HC upholds Trial Court’s view that informing grounds four minutes after arrest was not unreasonable

Bombay High Court: In a writ petition filed against the order passed by the Sessions Court wherein the accused’s claim regarding violation of his fundamental right to know the grounds of his arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution was rejected, a Single Judge Bench of Dr. Neela Gokhale, J., rejected the writ petition holding that the police had thoroughly followed the legal procedure and there was no violation of the fundamental right of the accused.

Background

An FIR was registered against the accused under Sections 376(2)(n)¹, 328², and 506³ of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and accordingly, he was arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (‘JMFC’).

Upon perusal of the notice-cum-intimation provided under Section 47(1) & (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (‘BNSS’), 2023, which revealed that the arresting officer communicated the grounds of arrest to the accused and his friend four minutes after his actual arrest, the JMFC held that the fundamental right of the accused was violated. Accordingly, the State was directed to release the accused.

Aggrieved by this order, the State assailed the JMFC’s order before the Sessions Court. After perusal of the arrest timeline, the Sessions Court set aside the JMFC’s order, holding that the communication of grounds of arrest within four minutes was not unreasonable. Thus, the arrest was held to be legal, as per the procedural requirements of the BNSS. Accordingly, the accused was directed to surrender.

Aggrieved, the accused filed the present petition.

Analysis

Considering the factual matrix, the timeline, provisions of BNSS regarding arrest, and the settled legal position, the Court stated that it was clear that the police had thoroughly followed the legally mandated procedure. The grounds of arrest were conveyed to the accused within four minutes of his arrest, as indicated by the diary entry and the contemporaneous documents provided by the State.

In this regard, the Court relied on the settled legal position in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254, wherein the Supreme Court held that the arrestee had the fundamental and statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of the same had to be provided to the arrestee at the earliest without exception. The Court also relied on Ram Kishor Arora v. Enforcement Directorate (2024) 7 SCC 599, wherein the Supreme Court held that if the arrestee was informed or made aware orally about the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest and given a written communication about the same as soon as possible, and within a reasonably convenient and the requisite time of 24 hours of his arrest, that would be sufficient compliance of Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

The Court rejected the contention that disallowing the adjournment application of the accused amounted to deprivation of his opportunity to be heard.

Thus, the Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no violation of any fundamental right of the accused and no infirmity in the impugned order.

[Gunwant Tarachand Jain v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 393 of 2025, decided on 12-02-2025]

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the petitioner: Sanjaykumar Singh,

For the respondent: Public Prosecutor H. S. Venegavkar and APP Aashish I. Satpute

Buy Constitution of India  HERE

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE